Share this story

"We have taken note of the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) decision, but we don't see that it has any direct implications for our investigation, for our discussions with Google, which are ongoing," Michael Jennings, a spokesman for the European Commission, told Reuters.

Google has been under pressure from Brussels since 2010 due to allegations that the search giant unfairly gives preference to its own services over those of competitors in its search results. Naturally, Google has denied the accusation.

"It may seem obvious, but people sometimes forget this—not every website can come out on top, or even appear on the first page of our results, so there will almost always be website owners who are unhappy about their rankings," wrote two Google vice presidents on the company's European Public Policy Blog in November 2010.

Share this story

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is out now from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

All this stuff is a waste of everyone's time, and in the end the only thing anti-consumer is these large government entities trying to tell consumers what they are really looking for...

Google has the right as a company to put a preference on their own services. They are not a utility... But a tool that you can use should you decide to...

True enough - they got popular as a tool because they were more user-friendly than the alternatives (altavista,lycos,etc),so if they were antagonizing the public in any way,don't you all think that everyone would've moved on to something else like Bing or Yahoo or whatever?

All this stuff is a waste of everyone's time, and in the end the only thing anti-consumer is these large government entities trying to tell consumers what they are really looking for...

Google has the right as a company to put a preference on their own services. They are not a utility... But a tool that you can use should you decide to...

True enough - they got popular as a tool because they were more user-friendly than the alternatives (altavista,lycos,etc),so if they were antagonizing the public in any way,don't you all think that everyone would've moved on to something else like Bing or Yahoo or whatever?

The new argument being floated around is that now it's not fair to be forced to compete against Google because their too good and have a head start, I can see it now, claiming anti competitive actions because you came late to the game

All this stuff is a waste of everyone's time, and in the end the only thing anti-consumer is these large government entities trying to tell consumers what they are really looking for...

Google has the right as a company to put a preference on their own services. They are not a utility... But a tool that you can use should you decide to...

True enough - they got popular as a tool because they were more user-friendly than the alternatives (altavista,lycos,etc),so if they were antagonizing the public in any way,don't you all think that everyone would've moved on to something else like Bing or Yahoo or whatever?

The new argument being floated around is that now it's not fair to be forced to compete against Google because their too good and have a head start, I can see it now, claiming anti competitive actions because you came late to the game

So in a nutshell - They are being persecuted because their relatively good work is popular enough? *ungh* Somedays it's so hard to be an EUropean :|

The EU is just trying to find some logical justification to fine Google really big in order to partially bail out their bankrupt union. Paying off the politicos in the EU has become an accepted requirement to do business in the EU by large foreign companies.

This is actually the first thought that crossed my mind as well. Are they really interested in some imaginary anti-trust issue, or is this just a tactic to leech money from a successful company?

The EU is just trying to find some logical justification to fine Google really big in order to partially bail out their bankrupt union. Paying off the politicos in the EU has become an accepted requirement to do business in the EU by large foreign companies.

That's just silly. Look at the vast scope of Europe's economic problems (hint: measured in Trillions of dollars) vs what they might dream of getting from Google and you'll see that such a anti-trust action must have motives other than a cash grab.

I don't see how this is any surprise, or why people are already assuming they're doing this just to get money off Google. Clearly the FTC thought there was enough of a reason to investigate this, so how is the EU doing the same thing evidence of corruption and wrongdoing? I think it's only fair that these things should be investigated when dealing with such large companies. I like Google and use their products extensively, but that doesn't mean we should just have blind faith everything is being done properly - there *is* a great responsibility in having such a dominant position in how people obtain information.

Do you people who are complaining about the EU investigating this take issue with the FTC doing the same thing, or is it just that you think the EU should stop their investigation because someone else, operating under a different system with different laws found nothing they took issue with? While the FTC not bringing up any charges against Google is a good indication that they're likely not doing much wrong in this area, it doesn't mean that everything is OK by European laws (or that they haven't missed something), so of course the EU need to finish their own investigation!

Looks like quite a few people don't understand the actual complaints or nature of complaints aimed at Google, especially the search bias aspect.

Google search, Google Maps, Google Shop, etc. are all different products for Google the same way Windows, IE, Office and Bing are different products for Microsoft. One of the complaints raised is how Google favours its own products when doing searches, for example say you want directions to the Grosvenor hotel and you search for the Grosvenor hotel in Google, the first thing you'll notice is a Google Maps display on the left with a button for directions. Now in the actual search listings you may find results for direction specific web sites/tools such as the AA Route Planner but how many people who didn't know the AA Route Planner existed would look down the search fields when Google has put Google Maps in a prime location?

This is the crux of that argument raised by specific search engine sites, such as price comparison, directions, contact details, etc. as it was the crux of the argument in the Internet Explorer anti-trust case. Google is using its dominance in one field to unfairly promote their products to the detriment of competitors irrespective of whether they or Google provide the better product.

The EU is just trying to find some logical justification to fine Google really big in order to partially bail out their bankrupt union. Paying off the politicos in the EU has become an accepted requirement to do business in the EU by large foreign companies.

Looks like quite a few people don't understand the actual complaints or nature of complaints aimed at Google, especially the search bias aspect.

Google search, Google Maps, Google Shop, etc. are all different products for Google the same way Windows, IE, Office and Bing are different products for Microsoft. One of the complaints raised is how Google favours its own products when doing searches, for example say you want directions to the Grosvenor hotel and you search for the Grosvenor hotel in Google, the first thing you'll notice is a Google Maps display on the left with a button for directions. Now in the actual search listings you may find results for direction specific web sites/tools such as the AA Route Planner but how many people who didn't know the AA Route Planner existed would look down the search fields when Google has put Google Maps in a prime location?

This is the crux of that argument raised by specific search engine sites, such as price comparison, directions, contact details, etc. as it was the crux of the argument in the Internet Explorer anti-trust case. Google is using its dominance in one field to unfairly promote their products to the detriment of competitors irrespective of whether they or Google provide the better product.

Google has one product and one TOS... its called Google and everything falls under Google... So Google Maps, is Google, same with Youtube, etc... You may think of these as separate applications, but it is one service and that service is Google.

You are correct Windows and Office are separate products... But you are wrong in thinking that Google's services are separate.

When I search for directions with Google I EXPECT to get results from Google... otherwise I would have gone some where else...

And if Google is allowing other operators to now remove listings, and "reviews" (for sites like yelp, etc..) then there is no issues here.

Looks like quite a few people don't understand the actual complaints or nature of complaints aimed at Google, especially the search bias aspect.

Google search, Google Maps, Google Shop, etc. are all different products for Google the same way Windows, IE, Office and Bing are different products for Microsoft. One of the complaints raised is how Google favours its own products when doing searches, for example say you want directions to the Grosvenor hotel and you search for the Grosvenor hotel in Google, the first thing you'll notice is a Google Maps display on the left with a button for directions. Now in the actual search listings you may find results for direction specific web sites/tools such as the AA Route Planner but how many people who didn't know the AA Route Planner existed would look down the search fields when Google has put Google Maps in a prime location?

This is the crux of that argument raised by specific search engine sites, such as price comparison, directions, contact details, etc. as it was the crux of the argument in the Internet Explorer anti-trust case. Google is using its dominance in one field to unfairly promote their products to the detriment of competitors irrespective of whether they or Google provide the better product.

Google has one product and one TOS... its called Google and everything falls under Google... So Google Maps, is Google, same with Youtube, etc... You may think of these as separate applications, but it is one service and that service is Google.

You are correct Windows and Office are separate products... But you are wrong in thinking that Google's services are separate.

When I search for directions with Google I EXPECT to get results from Google... otherwise I would have gone some where else...

And if Google is allowing other operators to now remove listings, and "reviews" (for sites like yelp, etc..) then there is no issues here.

Rubbish. EU investigation predates Google TOS change. Before they were different products with separate TOS, now magically they one?

Looks like quite a few people don't understand the actual complaints or nature of complaints aimed at Google, especially the search bias aspect.

Google search, Google Maps, Google Shop, etc. are all different products for Google the same way Windows, IE, Office and Bing are different products for Microsoft. One of the complaints raised is how Google favours its own products when doing searches, for example say you want directions to the Grosvenor hotel and you search for the Grosvenor hotel in Google, the first thing you'll notice is a Google Maps display on the left with a button for directions. Now in the actual search listings you may find results for direction specific web sites/tools such as the AA Route Planner but how many people who didn't know the AA Route Planner existed would look down the search fields when Google has put Google Maps in a prime location?

This is the crux of that argument raised by specific search engine sites, such as price comparison, directions, contact details, etc. as it was the crux of the argument in the Internet Explorer anti-trust case. Google is using its dominance in one field to unfairly promote their products to the detriment of competitors irrespective of whether they or Google provide the better product.

Google has one product and one TOS... its called Google and everything falls under Google... So Google Maps, is Google, same with Youtube, etc... You may think of these as separate applications, but it is one service and that service is Google.

You are correct Windows and Office are separate products... But you are wrong in thinking that Google's services are separate.

When I search for directions with Google I EXPECT to get results from Google... otherwise I would have gone some where else...

And if Google is allowing other operators to now remove listings, and "reviews" (for sites like yelp, etc..) then there is no issues here.

Rubbish. EU investigation predates Google TOS change. Before they were different products with separate TOS, now magically they one?

Even before those changes it could be accepted that Google is a SERVICE and all services comprised within are part of that services offering... The bottom line, its not a public listing like a phone book, or a census database... this is a publicly traded company that makes money, and does this by leveraging user data to sell advertisements, and in return can offer free services for consumers should they want to use the service.

Google is not required for one to use the internet.Consumers have 100% choice if they want to use Google's servicesThe only harm Google causes is possibly hurting some competition, but they are in turn creating a better product for the end user. Anti-trust laws are supposed to be used to protect the consumers, not the competition... When these laws are used to protect a competing company bad things happen...

Google is not Standard Oil, and does not provide any needed commodities to the world/people. Google does not control the internet, or the bits of data within it. Google controls one thing - its data, and how its data is used.

Looks like quite a few people don't understand the actual complaints or nature of complaints aimed at Google, especially the search bias aspect.

Google search, Google Maps, Google Shop, etc. are all different products for Google the same way Windows, IE, Office and Bing are different products for Microsoft. One of the complaints raised is how Google favours its own products when doing searches, for example say you want directions to the Grosvenor hotel and you search for the Grosvenor hotel in Google, the first thing you'll notice is a Google Maps display on the left with a button for directions. Now in the actual search listings you may find results for direction specific web sites/tools such as the AA Route Planner but how many people who didn't know the AA Route Planner existed would look down the search fields when Google has put Google Maps in a prime location?

This is the crux of that argument raised by specific search engine sites, such as price comparison, directions, contact details, etc. as it was the crux of the argument in the Internet Explorer anti-trust case. Google is using its dominance in one field to unfairly promote their products to the detriment of competitors irrespective of whether they or Google provide the better product.

Google has one product and one TOS... its called Google and everything falls under Google... So Google Maps, is Google, same with Youtube, etc... You may think of these as separate applications, but it is one service and that service is Google.

You are correct Windows and Office are separate products... But you are wrong in thinking that Google's services are separate.

When I search for directions with Google I EXPECT to get results from Google... otherwise I would have gone some where else...

And if Google is allowing other operators to now remove listings, and "reviews" (for sites like yelp, etc..) then there is no issues here.

That is wrong, Google is the company and have constantly referenced individual items as products (Google Shopping was called Froogle when it was first introduced). When they terminate something they refer to it as a product, when they turn products into features they refer to them as products. Until the FTC anti-trust hearing Google referred to everything as individual products.

Looks like quite a few people don't understand the actual complaints or nature of complaints aimed at Google, especially the search bias aspect.

Google search, Google Maps, Google Shop, etc. are all different products for Google the same way Windows, IE, Office and Bing are different products for Microsoft. One of the complaints raised is how Google favours its own products when doing searches, for example say you want directions to the Grosvenor hotel and you search for the Grosvenor hotel in Google, the first thing you'll notice is a Google Maps display on the left with a button for directions. Now in the actual search listings you may find results for direction specific web sites/tools such as the AA Route Planner but how many people who didn't know the AA Route Planner existed would look down the search fields when Google has put Google Maps in a prime location?

This is the crux of that argument raised by specific search engine sites, such as price comparison, directions, contact details, etc. as it was the crux of the argument in the Internet Explorer anti-trust case. Google is using its dominance in one field to unfairly promote their products to the detriment of competitors irrespective of whether they or Google provide the better product.

Google has one product and one TOS... its called Google and everything falls under Google... So Google Maps, is Google, same with Youtube, etc... You may think of these as separate applications, but it is one service and that service is Google.

You are correct Windows and Office are separate products... But you are wrong in thinking that Google's services are separate.

When I search for directions with Google I EXPECT to get results from Google... otherwise I would have gone some where else...

And if Google is allowing other operators to now remove listings, and "reviews" (for sites like yelp, etc..) then there is no issues here.

That is wrong, Google is the company and have constantly referenced individual items as products (Google Shopping was called Froogle when it was first introduced). When they terminate something they refer to it as a product, when they turn products into features they refer to them as products. Until the FTC anti-trust hearing Google referred to everything as individual products.

A service provider can have different products/services, but in the end it is a SINGLE service provider... If you had a mechanic shop that did engine repair and body repair they would never offer a competitor to do one of those services over there own company...

All this stuff is a waste of everyone's time, and in the end the only thing anti-consumer is these large government entities trying to tell consumers what they are really looking for...

Google has the right as a company to put a preference on their own services. They are not a utility... But a tool that you can use should you decide to...

True enough - they got popular as a tool because they were more user-friendly than the alternatives (altavista,lycos,etc),so if they were antagonizing the public in any way,don't you all think that everyone would've moved on to something else like Bing or Yahoo or whatever?

Looks like quite a few people don't understand the actual complaints or nature of complaints aimed at Google, especially the search bias aspect.

Google search, Google Maps, Google Shop, etc. are all different products for Google the same way Windows, IE, Office and Bing are different products for Microsoft. One of the complaints raised is how Google favours its own products when doing searches, for example say you want directions to the Grosvenor hotel and you search for the Grosvenor hotel in Google, the first thing you'll notice is a Google Maps display on the left with a button for directions. Now in the actual search listings you may find results for direction specific web sites/tools such as the AA Route Planner but how many people who didn't know the AA Route Planner existed would look down the search fields when Google has put Google Maps in a prime location?

This is the crux of that argument raised by specific search engine sites, such as price comparison, directions, contact details, etc. as it was the crux of the argument in the Internet Explorer anti-trust case. Google is using its dominance in one field to unfairly promote their products to the detriment of competitors irrespective of whether they or Google provide the better product.

Google has one product and one TOS... its called Google and everything falls under Google... So Google Maps, is Google, same with Youtube, etc... You may think of these as separate applications, but it is one service and that service is Google.

You are correct Windows and Office are separate products... But you are wrong in thinking that Google's services are separate.

When I search for directions with Google I EXPECT to get results from Google... otherwise I would have gone some where else...

And if Google is allowing other operators to now remove listings, and "reviews" (for sites like yelp, etc..) then there is no issues here.

Rubbish. EU investigation predates Google TOS change. Before they were different products with separate TOS, now magically they one?

Even before those changes it could be accepted that Google is a SERVICE and all services comprised within are part of that services offering... The bottom line, its not a public listing like a phone book, or a census database... this is a publicly traded company that makes money, and does this by leveraging user data to sell advertisements, and in return can offer free services for consumers should they want to use the service.

Google is not required for one to use the internet.Consumers have 100% choice if they want to use Google's servicesThe only harm Google causes is possibly hurting some competition, but they are in turn creating a better product for the end user. Anti-trust laws are supposed to be used to protect the consumers, not the competition... When these laws are used to protect a competing company bad things happen...

Google is not Standard Oil, and does not provide any needed commodities to the world/people. Google does not control the internet, or the bits of data within it. Google controls one thing - its data, and how its data is used.

I agree with some of your points, but neither you, me, Google or even EU commission is to decide whether Google is breaking EU laws. Let them finish their investigation. In fact, they may bring no action against Google, what is unlikely. Anyway if Google break any laws they have 3 options. First to settle it with EU, second to disagree and bring it to EU justice court or cease EU-wide operations. Let the system work, before you arbitrarily determine the only "right" outcome. I'm happy that EU want to see whether Google comply with laws that protect both consumers and free market. It most likely won't be any different than FTC investigation. It's certainly isn't witch hunt.

The new argument being floated around is that now it's not fair to be forced to compete against Google because their too good and have a head start, I can see it now, claiming anti competitive actions because you came late to the game

Interestingly, Google came late to the game. And the competition was entrenched (eg, well known, bookmarked, or even the default home page).

So why was Google successful?

Because it was better. Much better.

Google is similarly vulnerable to further innovation. Nothing forces anyone to use Google. They just do because there isn't something even better.

can you please then explain what is so anti consumer about and optional service that people can choose not to use, that offers their own services above a competitor?!

I can see nothing wrong with this.

Firstly EU laws are to protect consumers and healthy competition. Secondly my point is that some reject the idea of investigation, because "Google do no wrong and EU is after Google money". Let EU do their job and wait for the outcome of the investigation. For many of you EU have no right to even check and see how Google work?

Looks like quite a few people don't understand the actual complaints or nature of complaints aimed at Google, especially the search bias aspect.

Google search, Google Maps, Google Shop, etc. are all different products for Google the same way Windows, IE, Office and Bing are different products for Microsoft. One of the complaints raised is how Google favours its own products when doing searches, for example say you want directions to the Grosvenor hotel and you search for the Grosvenor hotel in Google, the first thing you'll notice is a Google Maps display on the left with a button for directions. Now in the actual search listings you may find results for direction specific web sites/tools such as the AA Route Planner but how many people who didn't know the AA Route Planner existed would look down the search fields when Google has put Google Maps in a prime location?

This is the crux of that argument raised by specific search engine sites, such as price comparison, directions, contact details, etc. as it was the crux of the argument in the Internet Explorer anti-trust case. Google is using its dominance in one field to unfairly promote their products to the detriment of competitors irrespective of whether they or Google provide the better product.

So what you're complaining about Google is like when McDonalds dude says "would you like fries with that?"

I suppose the McDonalds guy should say "would you like Burger King fries with that?"

Edit, add:

The difference with Microsoft is that Microsoft used dirty tricks to try to prevent you or make it infeasible for you to use another browser. Can you say ActiveX. Hidden APIs. Non standard JavaScript APIs, markup tags, etc. to subvert standardization and lock you in to Microsoft.

I suppose the McDonalds guy should say "would you like Burger King fries with that?"

A web search is the implied contract between the user and the search giant that if the user searches for "pizza" the consumer wants the most relevant result for "pizza", it that happens to be Search Gian Pizza Stand, then that is fine…

But if the most relevant result is actually Corner Pizza Shop or Fast Food Chain, then the user should expect to see Corner Pizza Shop or Fast Food Chain at the top of the search results.

Looks like quite a few people don't understand the actual complaints or nature of complaints aimed at Google, especially the search bias aspect.

Google search, Google Maps, Google Shop, etc. are all different products for Google the same way Windows, IE, Office and Bing are different products for Microsoft. One of the complaints raised is how Google favours its own products when doing searches, for example say you want directions to the Grosvenor hotel and you search for the Grosvenor hotel in Google, the first thing you'll notice is a Google Maps display on the left with a button for directions. Now in the actual search listings you may find results for direction specific web sites/tools such as the AA Route Planner but how many people who didn't know the AA Route Planner existed would look down the search fields when Google has put Google Maps in a prime location?

This is the crux of that argument raised by specific search engine sites, such as price comparison, directions, contact details, etc. as it was the crux of the argument in the Internet Explorer anti-trust case. Google is using its dominance in one field to unfairly promote their products to the detriment of competitors irrespective of whether they or Google provide the better product.

I see what you're saying. That Google should take a back seat to it's competitors and that will make it fair. Or are you saying that it's just fine for people to be too lazy to go beyond the first page of their search results, furthermore who in the EU is forcing people to use the Google search in the first place? So how can you say, knowing how the political system works, their is no money involved? That's as bad as, "Mommy, they're making me use Internet Explorer". So sad, so lazy.

can you please then explain what is so anti consumer about and optional service that people can choose not to use, that offers their own services above a competitor?!

I can see nothing wrong with this.

Its simple, Google has advertised itself as a search engine not a Google product search engine. At no point prior to the search process does Google state it will be favouring its own products giving the impression that its searches are impartial, consumers use it and the first thing they see is a biased result. Now Google Maps may not be the best application for directions, other direction websites give more up to date information such as road closures or speed cameras but the "impartial" search does not give you that option, it gives you Google's option. That is bad for consumers.

@DannyB

Its nothing like that example, its like ringing 118 118 (a non-BT branded BT directory service) and asking for somewhere to order cheap broadband and being given BT's details instead of competitor details that may be cheaper.

Google's search engine is a tool like any other. Its use is not enforced, and using it does not restrict switching to an alternative at any time. Although I distrust Google for privacy-related issues, I personally believe they are well within their rights to make whatever they want show up on search results.

However, the main issue here is that, for a healthy economy, it is undesirable for a monopoly to exist.Google has the monopoly on maps, as mentioned in other comments. A competing service would have a tough time gaining popularity because several of Google's own services are already highly desirable and are likely to show up first regardless. The question the EU poses is whether or not Google makes sure its services are always first, or if they are that way because of the way the site ranking algorithm functions normally.

It would not be an issue with smaller sites, but in the English-speaking world, Google search results can make or break service providers that desperately need exposure. When any group's influence reaches such a level, it becomes a matter of government interest.

If I wanted directions using Bing Maps, I would have searched using Bing. When I search for directions with Google, I want the results with Google Maps. I do not want the results with some third-party map provider. Do these morons realize that perhaps the reason I want the results with Google Maps, is because it will automatically sync with the Google Maps app on my phone, allowing me to do a search on my PC when I'm trying to decide where to eat, then it will auto sync to my phone, so I can use it for turn-by-turn?

When I pick up the phone and call AAA, and ask for a tow, is the first tow truck they recommend one that they are contracted with, or is it an un-affiliated company that happens to be nearby? (I used AAA before, so I know the answer is that it's an affiliate. They will send an affiliate, even if it means you have to wait an extra 2 hours)

If AAA is going to cry about search results from Google preferencing its own map provider, perhaps AAA should stop preferencing their own contracted companies when I use their services as well.

All this stuff is a waste of everyone's time, and in the end the only thing anti-consumer is these large government entities trying to tell consumers what they are really looking for...

Ah, summary prejudices are so convenient to have... no need to bother with reality...! ;-)

In real life, the EU Commission has actually been quite aggressive about consumer protection, among other things putting severe restrictions on mobile providers gouging their customers with roaming and SMS charges, but also putting an end to other corporate mischief.

So far, the EUC has been a lot more resistant to corporate lobbying than the respective US organs.

And while US corporations may be the only ones you hear or care about, they are at least as unrelenting against european ones.

danstl wrote:

Google has the right as a company to put a preference on their own services. They are not a utility... But a tool that you can use should you decide to...

If they pretend to offer general, unbiased search results, covertly inserting a bias towards their own products may amount to fraud committed against their users.

Google has the right as a company to put a preference on their own services. They are not a utility... But a tool that you can use should you decide to...

The european single market is not an utility for Google! They have the preference to operate in it or not. If they wish to have business in world's biggest market, they will also have to operate within that legal framework.

And fuck all american anti-trust terms and legal definitions thrown around in this thread. They are in no way relevant.

If you look at those who actually made the complaints, they are mostly companies in tight with Microsoft. The same Microsoft that did much more in bundling its products and services together to get where they are now. I don't really believe in coincidences of this magnitude.

If you look at those who actually made the complaints, they are mostly companies in tight with Microsoft. The same Microsoft that did much more in bundling its products and services together to get where they are now. I don't really believe in coincidences of this magnitude.

MS doesn't have enough clout to "orchestrate" an EUC inquiry, particularly after their own appearances under the EU microscope. But competitors can and do of course lodge complaints in their own interest to get proceedings started. Which is still not generally needed. Particularly the commissioner for consumer protection has been pretty proactive even without any interested party in the market.

can you please then explain what is so anti consumer about and optional service that people can choose not to use, that offers their own services above a competitor?!

I can see nothing wrong with this.

As noted earlier: EU legislation and European Commission approach is quite different from US similar practice.

First of all: EC is competition watchdog. Consumer harm is a result of uncompetitive behaviour of dominant undertakings. Whenever possible, commission acts before consumer harm is made. However, due to proceedings timespan it usually ends up resolving issues which are not reflecting market dynamics at the time of verdict.

"Tying and bundling are common practices intended to provide customers with better products or offerings in more cost effective ways. However, an undertaking which is dominant in one product market (or more) of a tie or bundle (referred to as the tying market) can harm consumers through tying or bundling by foreclosing the market for the other products that are part of the tie or bundle (referred to as the tied market) and, indirectly, the tying market. The Commission will normally take action under Article 82 where an undertaking is dominant in the tying market and where, in addition, the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) the tying and tied products are distinct products, and (ii) the tying practice is likely to lead to anti-competitive foreclosure."

This statement is illustrated with reference to EU court Case T-201/04 Microsoft vs Comission http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 201:EN:PDF , where court found that PC operating system and media player are distinct products, that Microsoft was in dominant position of PC OS market and that Microsoft abused it market dominant position in PC operating system in a way how it tied these products. Result: fine of almost half a billion dollars [disclaimer: there were other aspects as well]. Companies can be fined up to 10 percent of their turnover for breaching EU rules.

So yes, there are circumstances where offering their own services above a competitor is deemed illegal.

I think the UPS store needs to stop emphasizing UPS. Kinkos needs to stop emphasizing FedEx. The Apple Store is unfairly biased towards Apple products. And the Microsoft Store? Too many Windows PC's, not enough iPad's. Steam? Why do they constantly emphasize only steam-based games/applications? Where is the Mac software in my Windows App store? Where are my Steam games in iTunes? Why does my Xbox 360 Video or music marketplaces only sell me Xbox 360 videos or music? Why aren't my Xbox 360 purchases also Games for Windows Live purchases for PC?

You go to a service, you expect to be kept inside that service. Google is a service. Google is extraordinary in that it also lets you go to other services from its service and does so with an eagerness that reminds one of Miracle on 34th Street. If they don't have it, they'll find out who does.